On political considerations of decisions concerning abortion

[setarcos]

A question has arisen in my mind concerning the implications of voting for or against political leaders based upon their views on abortion.
It being one thing to protest against a position based on one’s personal convictions it is quite another thing to involve oneself in a system of formal voting in order to invoke an adherence to an agreed upon rule or law whether one agrees with it or not. Whereas In the former implicit beliefs play a role and in the latter explicit acceptance.
By agreeing to involve oneself in such a system we lend a certain credibility to whichever law or viewpoint won the most votes. It being generally accepted that whichever legitimately made law would be adhered to by both those for and against.
If the convictions against such a law were strong enough that though the law be legitimized through popular vote we find ourselves breaking the law rather than following it we have in a sense made our act legitimately criminal as apposed to morally innocent based upon our convictions.
Would it not be better to legitimize our position by refusing to involve ourselves in such a process in the first place rather than place ourselves in a hypocritical position by accepting said process and result only if it’s results are favorable to our convictions?
One should ask oneself if they would adhere to the law if it became legitimate. If not, why would one involve oneself in a process whereby said law is legitimized? Wouldn’t our efforts be better spent in trying to change the personal convictions of those who proposed such a law?

 

[Viki63]

Your question makes my head ache,
However, are you talking about voting for a politician based on his views on abortion, or voting for a law regarding abortion? There’s a difference, though not much.

We live in a republic which uses voting to elect officials. It is our duty to vote for life, in accordance with our Christian beliefs, Not voting is not making the laws illegitimate, it’s just failing to vote, which might allow the other side to win.

If you break a law, you have committed a criminal act whether you voted for the law or not. Sometimes we have to ignore man-made laws because they are against the laws of God, but we should be ready to accept the consequences. (Kim Davis, as an example)

.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Wouldn’t our efforts be better spent in trying to change the personal convictions of those who proposed such a law?

Yes, absolutely!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would it not be better to legitimize our position by refusing to involve ourselves in such a process in the first place rather than place ourselves in a hypocritical position by accepting said process and result only if it’s results are favorable to our convictions?
One should ask oneself if they would adhere to the law if it became legitimate. If not, why would one involve oneself in a process whereby said law is legitimized? Wouldn’t our efforts be better spent in trying to change the personal convictions of those who proposed such a law?

False dichotomy.

You may find it more productive to change personal convictions because you are more comfortable or able to do so, but others may have the necessary skills to work in the legal system to rectify errors and false notions that have taken hold there.

Why can’t WE do both?

I don’t see how refusing to participate in the “process” makes US less hypocritical or legitmate. The process was supposed to be about truth, justice and liberty – it no longer is. Seeking to fix the broken system is not hypocritical.

 

[St_Francis]

First of all, the system is legitimate. It’s the basis of our governance.

Voting pro-life means you are putting your voice out there. Just exchange pro-life for abolition and ask yourself if abolitionists should have refused to vote Reublican because they were against slavery?

And being pro-life is not a religious stance: it’s a human stance. Voting to require that people go to Mass on Sundays would be a religious stance; voting against the killing of unborn human babies would be a stance in favor of preseving human life. Is it a religious stance to forbid the murder of those already born? No. Is it a religious stance to forbid rape, or fraud, or drunk driving? No.

 

[setarcos]

Your question makes my head ache,
However, are you talking about voting for a politician based on his views on abortion, or voting for a law regarding abortion? There’s a difference, though not much.

We live in a republic which uses voting to elect officials. It is our duty to vote for life, in accordance with our Christian beliefs, Not voting is not making the laws illegitimate, it’s just failing to vote, which might allow the other side to win.

If you break a law, you have committed a criminal act whether you voted for the law or not. Sometimes we have to ignore man-made laws because they are against the laws of God, but we should be ready to accept the consequences. (Kim Davis, as an example)

.

Your question makes my head ache,
However, are you talking about voting for a politician based on his views on abortion, or voting for a law regarding abortion? There’s a difference, though not much.

Thank you so very much for replying. I’m terribly sorry for the head ache.
English is my primary language but I’ve yet to master it.
Either through a surrogate or personally it makes no difference, though the former may have less of a chance of being in line with ones personal convictions. I’m talking about involving oneself in an inherently faulty system in which one puts one in a position of hypocritical behavior. Ask yourself, "would you ever considering honoring the law you are morally apposed to if you lost and the law became legitimate? If you were never going to honor the legitimized law then why involve yourself in a process which legitimizes an act of evil by voting? Why would you imagine that if you were not going to uphold a legitimate law your apposed to that the opposition would be willing to uphold a law they are apposed to? You render the system irrelevant to its own purpose which is to establish rules by which to live (supposedly the greatest benefit to the most people) instead making rules by which no one is willing to live by.
I believe the laws of men are established to control behavior but God’s laws were established to change behavior. The greatest good for all the people. You cannot create followers of moral law by attempting to force them to uphold it. At best you would create resentment and fear of repercussions. At worst a criminal.

We live in a republic which uses voting to elect officials. It is our duty to vote for life, in accordance with our Christian beliefs, Not voting is not making the laws illegitimate, it’s just failing to vote, which might allow the other side to win.

We live in a fallen world which uses inherently imperfect systems to elect sin tainted souls to officiate over said system on our behalf and not always in our best interests. Life is not a vote. Life is a moral choice. As I’ve said…as long as you attempt to force someone to choose life you make it harder for life to be chosen. God does not ask us to force others to worship his son does he? It must be a free will choice. Do we establish our moral superiority by intimidating others to become Christian?

If you break a law, you have committed a criminal act whether you voted for the law or not. Sometimes we have to ignore man-made laws because they are against the laws of God, but we should be ready to accept the consequences. (Kim Davis, as an example)

You are right breaking laws in an Immoral world because of our morality is inevitable. However when it comes to involving oneself in a worldly system in order to vote on a law-a law already established in its morality by God- that you had never any intentions of upholding
should it not pass would render oneself spiritually hypocritical and morally wrong. As a representative of Christ would you risk him not to be a man of his word?
Would you sacrifice your religious convictions for political gain? The only way to avoid this is to not legitimize abortion by legitimizing a vote against abortion.
May God bless you and grant that you impart your wisdom I so desperately need.
.

 

[setarcos]

First of all, the system is legitimate. It’s the basis of our governance.

Voting pro-life means you are putting your voice out there. Just exchange pro-life for abolition and ask yourself if abolitionists should have refused to vote Reublican because they were against slavery?

And being pro-life is not a religious stance: it’s a human stance. Voting to require that people go to Mass on Sundays would be a religious stance; voting against the killing of unborn human babies would be a stance in favor of preseving human life. Is it a religious stance to forbid the murder of those already born? No. Is it a religious stance to forbid rape, or fraud, or drunk driving? No.

Are you suggesting voting is the only way to “put your voice out there”? I would suggest that one should refuse to suggest reducing whether or not to allow slavery to a mere vote. Please forgive me my impertinence but I believe to be human is to be religious. It is not a mere stance. Even if you are an atheist it is a world view which taints the minutest decisions of your conscious life.

 

[Faithdancer]

A question has arisen in my mind concerning the implications of voting for or against political leaders based upon their views on abortion.
It being one thing to protest against a position based on one’s personal convictions it is quite another thing to involve oneself in a system of formal voting in order to invoke an adherence to an agreed upon rule or law whether one agrees with it or not. Whereas In the former implicit beliefs play a role and in the latter explicit acceptance.
By agreeing to involve oneself in such a system we lend a certain credibility to whichever law or viewpoint won the most votes. It being generally accepted that whichever legitimately made law would be adhered to by both those for and against.
If the convictions against such a law were strong enough that though the law be legitimized through popular vote we find ourselves breaking the law rather than following it we have in a sense made our act legitimately criminal as apposed to morally innocent based upon our convictions.
Would it not be better to legitimize our position by refusing to involve ourselves in such a process in the first place rather than place ourselves in a hypocritical position by accepting said process and result only if it’s results are favorable to our convictions?
One should ask oneself if they would adhere to the law if it became legitimate. If not, why would one involve oneself in a process whereby said law is legitimized? Wouldn’t our efforts be better spent in trying to change the personal convictions of those who proposed such a law?

This post needs significant line editing for punctuation. There are a number of run-on sentences and sentence fragments. With more attention to syntax and editing, you will receive more feedback.

 

[Faithdancer]

You will receive more (name removed by moderator)ut if you write more coherently, i.e. without run on sentences.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This post needs significant line editing for punctuation. There are a number of run-on sentences and sentence fragments. With more attention to syntax and editing, you will receive more feedback.

Does it really matter? I’m a stickler for proper spelling and grammar, too, but he or she does get the idea across! I care more about shorter questions than syntax and editing. This is a message board, not a term paper. I don’t expect editing to be perfect, and frankly, I don’t have the time myself.

To the OP, I agree with the poster who said that being pro-life is not a religious stance. It is a life stance. We have a duty to protect the lives of other human beings, and that includes unborn human beings.

 

[setarcos]

This post needs significant line editing for punctuation. There are a number of run-on sentences and sentence fragments. With more attention to syntax and editing, you will receive more feedback.

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism.
However to point out the flaws in my grammer without offering to help me correct them does me a disservice and makes you seem arrogant. Of course it is much easier to merely point out the flaws rather than help fix them…I understand.
May peace be your constant companion…

 

[on_the_hill]

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism.
However to point out the flaws in my grammer without offering to help me correct them does me a disservice and makes you seem arrogant. Of course it is much easier to merely point out the flaws rather than help fix them…I understand.
May peace be your constant companion…

But then faithdancer would have to go through line by line editing, which is a little unrealistic.

Anyway, I think you’re asking if we should refuse to participate in a political system wherein a decision was made that we don’t agree with. Correct?

 

[glad2bhome]

This post reminds me about something that troubles me each election year. Do not a large majority of Catholics vote Democrat? Also, aren’t the majority of Democratic candidates pro-choice? I’ve always struggled with how they can be Catholic, yet vote pro choice.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This post reminds me about something that troubles me each election year. Do not a large majority of Catholics vote Democrat? Also, aren’t the majority of Democratic candidates pro-choice? I’ve always struggled with how they can be Catholic, yet vote pro choice.

Although most Democratic presidential candidates have been pro-choice, not all Democrats are, especially in the areas of local government.

I don’t consider myself Republican or Democrat or even independent. I judge each candidate individually, not as part of a group.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism.
However to point out the flaws in my grammer without offering to help me correct them does me a disservice and makes you seem arrogant. Of course it is much easier to merely point out the flaws rather than help fix them…I understand.
May peace be your constant companion…

Don’t worry about grammar. If people don’t want to read your post, they don’t need to. If they need to ask for clarification, they can. That is their problem, not yours. You have as much right to be here and post as anyone else.

 

[adrift]

While reading the OP what came to mind was a quote that I am not sure who said it
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -

 

[setarcos]

But then faithdancer would have to go through line by line editing, which is a little unrealistic.

Anyway, I think you’re asking if we should refuse to participate in a political system wherein a decision was made that we don’t agree with. Correct?

You ate absolutely correct about editing, which is why I said it would be much harder and I understood this.
Concerning the process of participating in politics when dealing with matters of morality, that is not my meaning.
I am concerned only with participating in a system which inevitably puts one in a position
of spiritual hypocracy in so much as one never intended to uphold the apposing sides view should they win though you participated in the same system whereby you would expect them to uphold the law should they lose.Which, I might add, I have argued doesn’t work from a moral standpoint anyway.
Of course I may be wrong but that is why I am here…to seek truth.

 

[setarcos]

While reading the OP what came to mind was a quote that I am not sure who said it
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -

That is an excellent quote. I only hope you do not think I advocate doing nothing to fight evil? I am not. The question for me becomes, “What can a good man do to fight evil and yet remain a good man?”.
May God bless you in innumerable ways.

 

[setarcos]

To the OP, I agree with the poster who said that being pro-life is not a religious stance. It is a life stance. We have a duty to protect the lives of other human beings, and that includes unborn human beings.

Kind scholar why do we have a duty to do this and from where does this sense of duty come?

 

[davidv]

Kind scholar why do we have a duty to do this and from where does this sense of duty come?

This duty comes from God via the Great Commandment, love God and neighbor. Why? To grow in holiness.